Paul lerymenko wrote: “Your assertion then must also not be an objective fact, and is therefore self-refuting. Yes I know, this is a trivial observation I’m making. But there it is, as obvious as it is, and here I am, pausing briefly to point this out explicitly.”
Yes, thank you Paul for confirming what I say. I go to the trouble of being specific about “objective empirical facts” and you, from your perspective, understand those three words to be identical to your two words: “objective facts,” as if the word “empirical” has no meaning.
I speak specifically in the article about the limitations of cognitive abstraction — your pulling two words out of my three words, for example, and then believing that you are actually responding to me rather than just speaking from your own subjective point-of-view.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ― David Bohm
Paul lerymenko wrote: “I do challenge your assertion that it would be good for people to think of their relationship to reality in these terms.”
Ah, but I’m not asserting that it is “good” for people to comport themselves this way anywhere in the article, I am asserting that, like you in your response, people are comporting themselves this way necessarily.
As I say in the article “All empirical observations and experiences are perspectival in nature, thus there are no objective empirical facts.” and that seems necessarily true given the facts.
Paul lerymenko wrote: “As you quite certain you are doing good in the world by teaching these ideas?”
Yes, absolutely. If someone doesn’t confront the hubris of scientists — this word taken in a wide sense of all those who believe that modern scientific practice is the only source of true knowledge — by pointing out the obvious faults implicit in it, then we will continue to suffer.
Paul lerymenko wrote: “But I suppose if there is no objective knowledge, you can just choose to interpret my words here as a ringing endorsement of your ideas. Or perhaps the page will simply appear blank to you. It’s okay, possibly I don’t even exist.”
Now you are just being boring.
Your thought process is not coherent with what I am saying. But as I said in the article: “All communication is a matter of skill on the part of the speaker, and a matter of imagination on the part of the listener, and overall, a matter of a developed context consisting of ongoing shared experience. Thus communication via language is stochastic in nature. Perhaps this is the reason that diplomacy is harder to accomplish than shooting bullets is.”
But of course, diplomacy requires a modicum of respect between the two parties, which appears to be a tall order for some.
You might find it interesting to read the next article: “What Even Scientists Are Often Guilty Of.”
